Last week we talked about different types of geoengineering as one way of taking action against climate change. Mother Jones recently ran an article that discusses geoengineering in a critical manner, noting in particular that:
“Every now and then, geoengineering of one kind or another gets floated by the media as a possible silver bullet if we continue to fail to make meaningful reductions to greenhouse gas emissions. But as the plankton debacle vividly illustrated, there are any number of very good reasons why the proposition never seems to get any traction. Ideas for how to do it are either too expensive, too entangled with thorny legal and geopolitical complications, too ineffective, or all of the above.”
The article continues with an explanation of two the more commonly discussed kinds of geoengineering, including the burial of CO2 underground, (which I believe was mentioned in our class), and a pros and cons comparison between them.
While the title of the article is boldly worded, the article nevertheless sheds a realistic light on the current state of geoengineering and what, if anything, we should expect to come of it.